What is the genesis of the current conflict between Eritrea and
Ethiopia?

The border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia has been continuing ever since Eritrea
became independent and the present Ethiopian government came to power. Bilateral attempts
to settle the dispute by jointly demarcating the common border had been in process, but
these attempts were frustrated when Ethiopia unilaterally issued a new map that included
large tracts of Eritrean territory and intensified its incursions into these areas to
forcibly incorporate them into its domain.

The dispute escalated into armed conflict when unprovoked Ethiopian forces attacked an
Eritrean patrol unit deep inside Eritrean territory on May 6, 1998. This attack was the
latest in a long string of violations by Ethiopia of Eritrean territory and sovereignty,
as well as the understanding between the two countries to maintain the status quo on the
border pending a final agreement. In July 1997, Ethiopian troops (two battalion strong)
occupied the Adi Murug area of Bada, in eastern Eritrea, dismantled the Eritrean
administration there and installed a new Ethiopian administration. A few days later,
Ethiopian authorities forcibly evicted Eritrean farmers from villages in the vicinity of
Badme in southwestern Eritrea, saying that they had demarcated the area as Ethiopian
territory. Eritrea protested to the Ethiopian government asking it to reverse those
infringements, but the Ethiopian authorities who had created new facts on the ground
refused to heed Eritrea's call. These incursions continued, resulting in Ethiopian
occupation of large tracts of land, especially in southwestern Eritrea.

Why did Eritrea not respond publicly to the earlier incursions
of Ethiopia into Eritrean territory?

Eritrea had not been fixated on the issue of its border with Ethiopia. Firstly,
Eritrea's border with Ethiopia is among the most clearly defined of colonial boundaries
and Eritrea was confident that it can easily be demarcated through peaceful and legal
means on the basis of the treaties that established it. Secondly, in light of the good
relations that existed between the two neighbors and their avowed objective of promoting
regional integration, the Eritrean government believed that the issue of borders was of
secondary significance and should not thus be allowed to obstruct the development of
bilateral and regional cooperation. Consequently, Eritrea consistently worked to resolve
the tension arising from border issues quietly, peacefully, and in as much as was
possible, bilaterally. It did not go public when Ethiopian troops occupied the Adi Murug
area of Bada and forcibly evicted farmers from the Badme area, razing to the ground their
dwellings and farms. It did not issue ultimatums or threaten all out war, as the Ethiopian
government has now done. It simply called for the formation of a joint commission to
resolve the issue on the basis of the treaties that established the border between the two
countries during the colonial period. Eritrea's restraint, however, only encouraged the
Ethiopian authorities, who might have misinterpreted it for weakness or lack of resolve,
to push on with their flagrant violations of Eritrean sovereignty.

Has the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia ever been legally
delimited?

Yes. The border between the two states was delimited in treaties signed and ratified in
1900, 1902 and 1908 by the then Imperial Government of Ethiopia and the Italian colonial
government in Eritrea. This border is, in fact, one of the most clearly defined in Africa,
and it had functioned as the internationally recognized boundary between the two states
during the colonial period and the Federation era. Even after Eritrea was annexed by
Ethiopia in 1962, the former boundary served as the border for the provincial
administration. Official Ethiopian maps under Emperor Haile Sellassie, and subsequently
under the military government of Mengistu Haile-Mariam clearly illustrate this fact. Any
map of Eritrea from Italian colonial times to the present, including all those that were
produced by the State of Ethiopia and by the United Nations at the time of the
Ethio-Eritrean Federation, confirm this internationally established boundary.

Were any changes made to this internationally established
boundary?

No legal alterations have ever been made. The first alarming sign of an intention on
the part of Ethiopia to unilaterally and formally change the established border came in
1997 with the official publication of a map of the Tigray region of Ethiopia.
Subsequently, Ethiopia embossed this new change in its new currency notes issued in
November 1997 and simultaneously continued to unilaterally demarcate the border so as to
coincide with its new illegal map. As any comparative view of this map with any of the
earlier ones clearly demonstrate, this new map incorporates large swaths of Eritrean land
into Ethiopia (see maps in Appendix). And even today, despite formal claims to respect
international boundaries, Ethiopia has not officially rescinded this map.

Why did border incidents mushroom into a major conflict, and
why has a solution to it become so intractable?

Despite Eritrea's efforts to have the border demarcated through a joint border
commission, Ethiopian's expansion into and expulsion of Eritreans from Eritrean territory
intensified in a bid to occupy all the areas incorporated into the new Tigray map of 1997.
When the May 6,1998 Ethiopian attack on an Eritrean patrol unit was repulsed and Eritrean
forces drove the invading Ethiopian forces out of Eritrean lands they had encroached upon,
the Ethiopian government issued an ultimatum on May 13, 1998 threatening that unless
Eritrean troops unconditionally and unilaterally withdraw from the areas Ethiopia claims,
it will attack and drive them out by force. This was a declaration of war, and indeed the
Ethiopian army attacked Eritrea throughout the common border and bombed the Eritrean
capital, Asmara. Thus, Ethiopia escalated its attack in the Badme area to a full blown war
against Eritrea. Meanwhile, the Ethiopian government started the mass round-up,
incarceration and expulsion of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin resident in
Ethiopia. The Ethiopian media also started a frantic inflammatory campaign inciting hatred
and confrontation against Eritrea and Eritreans.

How has Eritrea responded to this crisis?

In stark contrast to the Ethiopian approach, Eritrea has responsibly striven to defuse
the situation and pave the way for a peaceful, lasting solution. It has called for the
renunciation of the use of force. It has also proposed the demilitarization of the entire
border, and the demarcation of the border by a third party on the basis of the
internationally recognized treaties that established the boundary. The above points are
incorporated in the following proposals forwarded by the Eritrean government:

Commitment to resolve the border dispute through peaceful and legal means, and thus
agreement to an immediate and unconditional cessation of hostilities to be followed by a
cease-fire.

Acceptance of the border established during the colonial period by treaties signed by
Ethiopia and Italy, and the demarcation of that border by a neutral technical body on the
basis of these treaties.

Creation of an enabling situation for peaceful and speedy demarcation of the border
which, if need be, would include the demilitarization of the entire border.

The deployment of neutral observers to monitor the border areas to ensure peaceful
demarcation.

What have been the results of the various mediation efforts so
far and what is Eritrea's reaction to them?

The root cause of the conflict is the non recognition and violation by the present
Ethiopian government of the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia established during the
colonial period. Eritrea firmly believes that any dispute concerning the border can and
should be resolved peacefully and legally and not by recourse to force. Eritrea thus
welcomed and cooperated with the mediation efforts of various concerned parties from the
outset. With all of them, Eritrea has always maintained that a lasting and just solution
needs to be based on legal foundations and investigated facts, and not on political
expediency. It is unfortunate that some good intentioned facilitators at the outset did
not heed to this cardinal principle and their efforts led to closed doors, a fact
exploited by the Ethiopian regime which is always bent on the use of force to usurp what
it claims. The Organization of African Unity (O.A.U.) has finally came up with a proposal
for a framework agreement for the peaceful resolution of the conflict. The Eritrean
government has accepted this proposal as a basis for discussion, and has called for a
cessation of hostilities while discussions on the proposal continue to diffuse the tension
and create a conducive atmosphere for a peaceful process. This call is supported by the
O.A.U. as well, but Ethiopia has rejected this call and is preparing to re-launch
an-all-out offensive against Eritrea.

What would have to happen to de-escalate tensions and arrive at
an enduring settlement of the conflict?

Both sides would have to agree to resolve the present crisis through peaceful and legal
means, and reject solutions that are imposed by force. Both sides must accept to respect
the established colonial boundaries between them and state so publicly. They must further
agree that the actual demarcation of the border will be carried out on the basis of the
treaties that established it by a mutually acceptable technical team within a clearly
defined time-frame. It should be agreed that the demarcation be carried out in the
presence of a third party to witness the process and to act as a guarantor of the outcome.
Eritrea has publicly committed itself to these principles, while Ethiopia has not done so.
Ethiopia continues to demand that Eritrea must unilaterally and unconditionally withdraw
from areas Ethiopia claims and that Ethiopia administers these areas as a precondition. If
not, it goes to war. Eritrea' s position has been for a quick demarcation of the border on
the basis of the principles and measures stated above.

The impasse around redeployment and civil administration of the
disputed areas seems to be related to how one defines the basis and origins of the
conflict; Ethiopia claims it is a question of Eritrean 'aggression' and started on May 6,
1998, and Eritrea asserts that the cause of the conflict is Ethiopia's violation of the
established border by unilaterally redrawing it and encroaching on Eritrean territories by
force to establish a de facto situation starting from the day it came to power. How can
this impasse be overcome?

Since there are clear differences on the basis and genesis of the conflict, Eritrea
believes that a full investigation of the existing border until the coming of the present
Ethiopian regime to power and incidents around the border up to and including that of May
6, 1998 should be conducted by an independent commission. But this can be done in tandem
with the demilitarization process and the demarcation of the border so as to definitively
settle the dispute and end the conflict. It should not be used as an excuse to further
escalate the current conflict and delay demarcation which is the ultimate solution.

Does not the indiscriminate expulsion of citizens further
exacerbate the conflict and leave a bitter residue in the long-term relations between the
two peoples?

Yes. This deplorable act can obviously harm the relations between the two peoples. It
is important that the international community clearly condemns these criminal acts of
'ethnic cleansing' being perpetrated by the Ethiopian government. In a cynical bid to
confuse the international community, Ethiopia claims that Eritrea too is expelling
Ethiopian citizens from Eritrea. In fact, in resolutions it passed in June 1998, the
Eritrean National Assembly has made it absolutely clear that it condemns such acts and has
informed Ethiopians residing in Eritrea of their right to seek legal redress if they are
subjected to any form of harassment or illegal act. Eritrea has further made it clear that
any individual or organization is welcome to come to Eritrea to witness the status of
Ethiopians living there. The facts of the matter are now openly acknowledged by specific
United Nations agencies, representatives of the European Union and the International
Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). The O.A.U. has acknowledged that there is no
"systematic or official action directed against Ethiopians in Eritrea."
Unfortunately, the Ethiopian government has refused to heed the call of the international
community to desist from these gross violations of human rights and international law.
Anyone seeking independent confirmation of this can contact the United Nations and the
Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

How is it that, on the one hand both countries call for a
peaceful resolution of the conflict, and on the other hand, there is a horrendous prospect
of a major protracted war looming over the horizon?

Both countries have been expressing their readiness for a peaceful resolution of the
conflict and have been appealing to the O.A.U., the U.N., other regional organizations and
countries to help facilitate a peaceful resolution. The difference lies in the sincerity
and commitment of their pronouncements and actions. Eritrea has been consistently and
firmly articulating that there is no alternative to a peaceful solution to the conflict
and has been reacting to peace proposals in good faith. The Ethiopian officials, however,
have been engaged in double-talk. On the one hand, they say that they want a peaceful
settlement of the conflict, and on the other hand they have been putting irrational
preconditions, diverting from the main issue of the border dispute and beating war drums
unless they have it their way.

Here are few examples of statements and pronouncements made by Ethiopian officials at
different times:

The Ethiopian leader, Meles Zenawi, tells David Gough in Addis Ababa, "A nation's
fate in war depends on its ability to mobilize resources. Eritrea's ability to mobilize
will decrease as the crisis continues whereas ours will increase." The Guardian
June 19, 1998

The Ethiopian Prime Minister, in an interview on Ethiopian television, asked about the
deportations of Eritreans said that [the Ethiopian government] "has the unrestricted
right to expel any foreigner from the country for any reason whatsoever. Any foreigner,
whether Eritrean, Japanese, etc., lives in Ethiopia because of the goodwill of the
government. If the Ethiopian government says 'Go, because we don't like the colour of your
eyes,' they have to leave."The BBC, July 10, 1998

Almaz Meko, Speaker in Ethiopia's parliament, told reporters in South Africa,
"Until now we have been preparing ourselves [to attack]. Now, we believe we have made
enough preparations."Reuters, July 17, 1998

Negaso Gidada, President of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia said: "The use of
force will come at the time when the government believes is right."The Ethiopian
Herald, September 11, 1998

Appendix

MAP 1 A Map of Eritrea produced in 1907, when Eritrea was a colony
of Italy. Please note the straight-line border on (on the southwest border of Eritrea and
Ethiopia)this map and compare it with the alterations made by the Ethiopian government in
the 1997 Tigray Administration Zone of Ethiopia (MAP 3). This is the Badme line.

MAP 2 A Map of Eritrea produced in 1950 by the United nations
Commission for Eritrea showing the administrative boundaries of the country. Here again,
please note the straight-line border between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

MAP 3 This is the 1997 map of the Tigray Administration Zone of
Ethiopia. The shaded or lined areas are Eritrean territory claimed by Ethiopia.